The other day (while washing dishes) I wondered about how far back reverse compatibility of Data Bases is necessary. Does a current database need to be reverse compatible to before the last commercial full release? The 'new' (post EC2003) battlesets that use external databses have now been around for quite some time. When a new release appears necessary databases for the older scenarios could perhaps be provided separately in a 'legacy' section or the like.

At some stage we might see built in scenarios from the WWs or cold war period so some way of organising multiple databases would need to be built into the setup anyway.

If at every commercial release the data base could be 'tidied up' would there be advantages, e.g. more space for loadouts, erasing unwanted items?

I seem to remember that the current scenario editor puts hidden code in to the scenario to show what database was used for its writting, could be that future GEs will automatically look for the correct database?

Don

I like that idea. Right now I use the excellent Launcher to run scenarios for different databases. It requires only a few clicks to change scenario or db.

 

I wonder if an external launcher, like the one Tony implemented, could do the job. A scenario would need a 'hint' file that points it to the right database. The database could be identified by name or maybe a signature. Not sure if the database structure contains a good field for such a signature? While a hash for the db could be used, it is hard to maintain with fast moving databases.

You may want to take a gander and add thoughts to http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=2423

 

The only strict reverse compatibility required for the HCDB is for the EC2003/WestPac battleset scenarios shipped with the game. True Brad could eventually say he doesn't want to support them going forward and tie them to an older version of the HCDB.

 

That said I really like the idea of maintaining reverse compatibility where possible and shift the 'blame' more to the 2048 items/annex limitation of the database structure (and scenario editor). We'd all be better served I think by gigantic monolithic databases than by what we have now (databases fractured into time/geography segments because of the limitations in records per annex).

 

Oh, and definitely I want and intend for the launcher to note the correct database for a scenario, go out and find it, then make it run. It just hasn't happened yet. In the last beta build I also extended (or started extending) that idea to custom battlesets.

You may want to take a gander and add thoughts to http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=2423

 

The only strict reverse compatibility required for the HCDB is for the EC2003/WestPac battleset scenarios shipped with the game. True Brad could eventually say he doesn't want to support them going forward and tie them to an older version of the HCDB.

 

That said I really like the idea of maintaining reverse compatibility where possible and shift the 'blame' more to the 2048 items/annex limitation of the database structure (and scenario editor). We'd all be better served I think by gigantic monolithic databases than by what we have now (databases fractured into time/geography segments because of the limitations in records per annex).

 

The limits in the country table and the unit sub types is even more annoying....

 

you cannot cover all plitical countrys for a given period of time (even when you break the db down to 1 Year).